K Gun Special Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The owners have plenty of money. Ralph isnt paying the players but still has his tv money. Matching front office peoples' 401k who make 40,000 isnt going to put him in the poorhouse. You cant compare the NFL to your job, its not even close to the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The owners have plenty of money. Ralph isnt paying the players but still has his tv money. Matching front office peoples' 401k who make 40,000 isnt going to put him in the poorhouse. You cant compare the NFL to your job, its not even close to the same. But it is when it's dealing with people only making $40k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 But it is when it's dealing with people only making $40k. How? The still have $$ but their expenses are much lower bc they arent players........so how is it similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 But it is when it's dealing with people only making $40k. it is similar in the sense that bottom tier companies within an industry will often offer better benefits than competitors to lure top talent. a good organization understands the need for good people at all levels. similarly, top tier companies offer employees perks to retain talent and remain top tier. the bills...not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) How? The still have $$ but their expenses are much lower bc they arent players........so how is it similar? Supply and Demand. How is a $40k Business Office job with the Bills any different than a $40k Business Office job with M&T, Rich Products, Paychex or Geico? Similar degree requirements, similar skillsets, same pay. Why would the benefit expectations be any different when the companies revenue is expected to be lowered? Edited May 25, 2011 by Ghost of Rob Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 What is different about an NFL team, during a management imposed lock-out, is that a measure like the Bills are taking, almost implies that they don't think they will ever be making the same money again...the fact that other teams aren't taking the same step makes this reek of chintzy-ness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 What is different about an NFL team, during a management imposed lock-out, is that a measure like the Bills are taking, almost implies that they don't think they will ever be making the same money again...the fact that other teams aren't taking the same step makes this reek of chintzy-ness... No argument there. Of course chintzy-ness has been a core value of the Bills organization for decades so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 it is similar in the sense that bottom tier companies within an industry will often offer better benefits than competitors to lure top talent. a good organization understands the need for good people at all levels. similarly, top tier companies offer employees perks to retain talent and remain top tier. the bills...not so much. Not only that, but Bills got a head start in outsourcing to the Chinese labor pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Not only that, but Bills got a head start in outsourcing to the Chinese labor pool. hmmmm, is THAT why they drafted wang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) The Bucs are closing their offices for the week of Memorial Day. If no regular season games are missed the employees will be retroactively paid, making it in effect an extra week of paid vacation. If any regular season games are missed, it will remain an unpaid 1 week furlough. http://www.rtsports.com/football-news/1000074113 The Detroit Lions have already imposed a two week unpaid furlough on their employees: http://www.rtsports.com/football-news/nfp-7a37ac5ce4be3b1cd58300c6e15f9c8e Edited May 26, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 now, even more than before, there will be a dearth of top candidates for any future coaching vacancies with the bills...and who can blame them? they should be doing MORE than other teams. this is incredibly short sighted. Winner, step right up and get your prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 This is not as big a deal as people think. 401K plans are based on the calendar year. You can fund to the max amount allowed by the IRS right up until Dec. 31st. You don't have to fund on any particular schedule based on an employee's paycheck or pay-period. I run a 50 employee business and we do this every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Last year when my company was not doing fiscally well, they decided to contribute to the 401(K) but forced everyone to take a day off without pay each month to compensate the cost for the 401(k). Similarly, they made a temporary reduction of x% in the salary until December. When companies or oganizations are hit at their bottom line, they have to take actions. Yep. Been there done that as well. Another alternative would be for the company to lay off a bunch of people, basically putting the suffering and sacrifice wholly on select people rather than distributing it across the board on everyone. How cool would it be to fire Dave Wannstedt because he has the least seniority, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Do Billionaire's really have a bottom line ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsguy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 just more of the "same old same old" with wilson. it is tiring, has been , with few exceptions, over the past 50 years.. but we should all be glad he kept the team in buffalo, yada yada.. but , the franchise's laughingstock status is because of him and his advisers and i am quite sure all of us take it personally when the franchise gets dumped on . the perception of the team nationally sucks and it pis-es me off..like everyone else, i grasp at any positive thread of hope, but in the end, we have witnessed a team run around in clown uniforms the past decade as they bore the ever-lovin sh-t outta of us.. Let me put it this way, if Terry Pegula was owner of the Bills would the Bills have a better chance of success? I think so without a doubt. I believe Pegula's attitude towards ownership is to respect his employees and players and then you will get the best out of them. Hire the best people, treat them with respect, and compensate them for achievement and you will build a winner. Wilson takes a different point of view that is not consistent with winning. The Bills will always fail under Wilson. In addition, he cares more about his money than the Bills fans - always has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) The coaches may have other lockout-related compensation issues to worry about. It has been reported that the NFLPA distributed a memo to players in mid-May entitled "CBA Chronology 2007 March 2011: NFL's Path to a Lockout." It contains 52 entries showing the various steps the NFL and union took from March, 2007 when the NFL hired Bob Batterman, until March 1. 2011, when Judge Doty ruled in favor of the players in the TV revenues case. http://www.profootba...o-lockout/print I have not yet been able to find a website displaying that entire chronolgy, but there is a Dolphin fan's website that lists a less extensive chronology and cites the NFLPA as the source of its information. I am not vouching for its accuracy, but you can see that more limited chronology here: http://dolfanjill.co...kout-time-line/ One of the entries reads: "February 2007: NFL owners began imposing lockout clauses in coaches and executives contracts that gave clubs the right to reduce compensation in the event of a lockout. Examples include language allowing the clubs to reduce, terminate, or suspend the contract on 20 days notice, reduce salary by 50 percent if a lockout continues for more than 90 days, terminate the employee without pay on 60 days notice, and extend the contract another year at the same terms as 2011 if at least eight NFL games are canceled due to a lockout." Just speculating here, but maybe that's a big reason why the coach's association filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit siding with the players in seeking to lift the lockout. Edited June 2, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The coaches may have other lockout-related compensation issues to worry about. It has been reported that the NFLPA distributed a memo to players in mid-May entitled "CBA Chronology 2007 — March 2011: NFL's Path to a Lockout." It contains 52 entries showing the various steps the NFL and union took from March, 2007 when the NFL hired Bob Batterman, until March 1. 2011, when Judge Doty ruled in favor of the players in the TV revenues case. http://www.profootba...o-lockout/print I have not yet been able to find a website displaying that entire chronolgy, but there is a Dolphin fan's website that lists a less extensive chronology and cites the NFLPA as the source of its information. I am not vouching for its accuracy, but you can see that more limited chronology here: http://dolfanjill.co...kout-time-line/ One of the entries reads: "February 2007: NFL owners began imposing lockout clauses in coaches’ and executives’ contracts that gave clubs the right to reduce compensation in the event of a lockout. Examples include language allowing the clubs to reduce, terminate, or suspend the contract on 20 days’ notice, reduce salary by 50 percent if a lockout continues for more than 90 days, terminate the employee without pay on 60 days’ notice, and extend the contract another year at the same terms as 2011 if at least eight NFL games are canceled due to a lockout." Just speculating here, but maybe that's a big reason why the coach's association filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit siding with the players in seeking to lift the lockout. Your speculation is incorrect. Coaches are widely claiming they do not agree with the brief. In fact, they don't even know who wrote it. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6619264 Bills coach (spokesman?) Modkins is falling over himself to lick Raplh's boots, in fact. And why are you making a big deal about the owners planning for a lockout if negotiations were to break down? Why wouldn't they? You point makes no sense. They made multiple offers, each offerng more concessions than the next. They twice extended the CBA deadline. All offers were rejected by the union. The union then decertified before the CBA actually expeired. Then the owners locked them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Suspending company matching into the 401k is one of the first things to go when its time to cut costs because it's a way to reduce payroll without cutting more jobs. It happened to tens of millions of people in the past few years. We did it in 2009 and just reinstated it this year. If we had not eliminated the match at that time, two additional jobs would have been eliminated. Absolutely. It's all market-based. My law firm dispensed with any 401K contributions about 5 years ago because all of the biglaw law firms weren't contributing either. I'm actually shocked that NFL teams have pensions for their employees or provide any funding for 401k's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) Your speculation is incorrect. Coaches are widely claiming they do not agree with the brief. In fact, they don't even know who wrote it. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6619264 Bills coach (spokesman?) Modkins is falling over himself to lick Raplh's boots, in fact. And why are you making a big deal about the owners planning for a lockout if negotiations were to break down? Why wouldn't they? You point makes no sense. They made multiple offers, each offerng more concessions than the next. They twice extended the CBA deadline. All offers were rejected by the union. The union then decertified before the CBA actually expeired. Then the owners locked them out. First, I think there is plenty of blame for both sides in the labor dispute. If you think posting information about coach's contract provisions that I do not recall seeing elsewhere on TBD is "making a big deal" about the lockout and being overly critical of the owners, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. But mainly, you're just being ornery. Let's assume, solely for the sake of argument, that the coach's association did not contact even one coach anywhere in the world before filing the amicus brief. Even if that were true, the coach's association must have had SOME reason for filing it (even if every single NFL coach in hindsight also thinks it was a bad idea). I identified my speculation as exactly that . . . speculation. It may turn out to be correct speculation, or it may turn out to be incorrect speculation, but nothing in your post tends to suggest which it will be. I'll probably regret this, but go ahead and enlighten me. Why do YOU think the coach's association filed the amicus brief in support of the players? Or do you think it was a totally random event . . . kind of like the Big Bang theory for creation of the universe. BOOM! Amicus brief filed by coach's association for absolutely no reason whatsoever. BTW, thanks for the link - - it actually had some useful information. Edited June 3, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 First, I think there is plenty of blame for both sides in the labor dispute. If you think posting information about coach's contract provisions that I do not recall seeing elsewhere on TBD is "making a big deal" about the lockout and being overly critical of the owners, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. But mainly, you're just being ornery. Let's assume, solely for the sake of argument, that the coach's association did not contact even one coach anywhere in the world before filing the amicus brief. Even if that were true, the coach's association must have had SOME reason for filing it (even if every single NFL coach in hindsight also thinks it was a bad idea). I identified my speculation as exactly that . . . speculation. It may turn out to be correct speculation, or it may turn out to be incorrect speculation, but nothing in your post tends to suggest which it will be. I'll probably regret this, but go ahead and enlighten me. Why do YOU think the coach's association filed the amicus brief in support of the players? Or do you think it was a totally random event . . . kind of like the Big Bang theory for creation of the universe. BOOM! Amicus brief filed by coach's association for absolutely no reason whatsoever. BTW, thanks for the link - - it actually had some useful information. Someone in the NFLCA (which does not represent all coaches--it's voluntary) filed the brief. That someone apparently didn't tell any of the coaches the NFLCA represents that such a brief would be filed or what it's nature was. I don't know the motivation of the individual who filed it, but it is abundantly clear from that article that the rank and file, such as it is, does not support the brief. Therefore, your claim that they coaches side with the players becuase of lockout clauses in their contracts cannot be true. Why did the NFLPA file it? To make some noise, I guess. It certainly was not in the best interest or at the request of its members. No need to speculate about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts